John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
Perhaps you were unaware of it. Many Debian packages contain GPL'd
elements.
Thomas
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
actually already in source form.
A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal
Turing machine can be completely emulated.
Er. That would
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
Perhaps
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
The context was not asking that question.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
actually already in source form.
If the GPL is in question, it gives a specific definition of source
under which most postscript documents are not in source form.
Thomas
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
actually already in source form.
A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal
Turing machine can
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
The context was not asking that question.
No, in context, the
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
I think we can just use the same one as the
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
The form of a
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include a
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:14:50AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
The form of a {program,document} that is intended for modification. This
includes perl scripts (unless they've been run through an obfuscator),
human-editable HTML, and human-editable PDF. It clearly doesn't include
most generated
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:24:36AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I would also guess that in most cases the availability of source is
irrelevant, because the academic paper isn't available under a
DFSG-free licence anyway; most authors of academic papers don't want
other people
John == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On 17 Mar 2002, Sam Hartman wrote:
C == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
C as part of their documentation. In many cases, there is no
C ``source''
Hi.
would you comment on these two suggestions? are they ok for us?
thanks,
Cord
PS: please Cc me on replies.
- Forwarded message from D. Hugh Redelmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:13:10 -0500 (EST)
From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Glenn Maynard) wrote:
And we're back at the fact that source, like software, is hard
to define, and sometimes it's even hard to tell intuitively. (With
respect to exported HTML I suppose the original Word document is the
source; but it hardly seems correct to call it that.)
17 matches
Mail list logo
